Oops, The Guadian newspaper suported slavery.

Joined
2 Jul 2019
Messages
12,421
Reaction score
2,111
Location
cornwall
Country
United Kingdom
https://order-order.com/page/2/

Guardian columnists are revelling in the destruction of imperfect historical figures, perhaps unaware their employer’s past is one rooted in being on the side of the US Confederacy and opposition to Abraham Lincoln. Will Black Lives Matter protestors begin marching towards 90 York Way?

Back in the 1860s, The Manchester Guardian gave unqualified support to the confederacy during the American civil war; even reprinting confederate propaganda against the slaves’ liberator Abraham Lincoln.

“it was an evil day both for America and the world when he was chosen President of the United States”

– Manchester Guardian, 10th October 1862

Upon the news of President Lincoln’s assassination, the Guardian described the president’s time in office as “abhorrent”, specifically the Proclamation of Emancipation – the act that declared “all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”

Perhaps the opposition to emancipation of slaves was driven by the views of their founder, John Edward Taylor, who made his money in the cotton trade – an industry that prospered on the backs of cotton-picking slaves. After the death of their founder in 1844, the paper continued its relationship with its cotton merchant advertisers, going as far as demanding Manchester’s cotton workers, who refused to touch cotton picked by US slaves, should be forced back into work.
 
Sponsored Links
perhaps unaware their employer’s past is one rooted in being on the side of the US Confederacy and opposition to Abraham Lincoln

perhaps they are since the article criticising the Guardians involvement......was published in the Guardian itself. :ROFLMAO:

From the Guardian, Thu 16 Oct 2008:
"Black History Month might be a good time to confront the Guardian's record of supporting the confederacy's "self determination" in the American civil war. The Manchester Guardian repeated confederate propaganda"
 
perhaps they are since the article criticising the Guardians involvement......was published in the Guardian itself. :ROFLMAO:

From the Guardian, Thu 16 Oct 2008:
"Black History Month might be a good time to confront the Guardian's record of supporting the confederacy's "self determination" in the American civil war. The Manchester Guardian repeated confederate propaganda"

Let's hope some 'peaceful demonstrators' get wind of it eh?
 
Protester damaging statues and defacing memorials. What the people doing the screaming that we shouldn't be honouring people who, historically dealt in the slave trade seem to forget is that were it not for the slave trade, the enforced migration by slavery, descendants - i.e. the majority of the people protesting would not be born or in this country and so able to protest.
 
Sponsored Links
Yawn. Getting really bored of people trying to cloud the real issue like this.

I am pretty sure the Guardian today disagrees with its beliefs during the American civil war.

The difference is, the Guardian no longer stands to represent the glory of the slave trade. But a slave trader, literally stood on a pedestal for all to see, did just that.
 
Gladstone was a member of the Liberal party, and would probably be a subscriber to the Guardian if he were alive today.

He opposed the abolition of slavery because his family owned slaves in the W.Indies, when slavery was abolished he claimed compensation for loss of property.
He received the equivalent of £9 million in today's money.

The Liberals are the real hypocrites.
 
Yawn. Getting really bored of people trying to cloud the real issue like this.

I am pretty sure the Guardian today disagrees with its beliefs during the American civil war.

The difference is, the Guardian no longer stands to represent the glory of the slave trade. But a slave trader, literally stood on a pedestal for all to see, did just that.

No, but it's in the newspaper sections of shops for all the see, everyday. Maybe Edward Colston would disagree with his former beliefs if he were alive today.
 
i.e. the majority of the people protesting would not be born or in this country and so able to protest.
No they might have been able to develop their own country instead of working for free making the UK rich.
 
No they might have been able to develop their own country instead of working for free making the UK rich.

I really don't think so. So you're saying if the wicked white men hadn't done such heinous ills to Africa (which I accept it did) we'd be in noughts and crosses situation. No, can't see it.
 
No, but it's in the newspaper sections of shops for all the see, everyday. Maybe Edward Colston would disagree with his former beliefs if he were alive today.

If he were alive today? Need a time machine to defend him now. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
No they might have been able to develop their own country instead of working for free making the UK rich.

All these protestors are working for free making the UK rich?

Go on, I'm intrigued.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top